January 24, 2007

Box-checkers in academia

Ethnic Fraud?

Tribal scholars say some faculty are falsely claiming American Indian heritage to boost their job prospects.Noley and Chenault have a name for those who would use spurious ties to tribal heritage to further their employment opportunities. They call them “box-checkers.”

According to Chenault, some job candidates simply “check the box” for American Indian/Alaskan Native on job forms, hoping to be identified as minority faculty and thus reap the benefits of any available affirmative action plans. There is responsibility, however, that comes with checking the box, she says. “We need committed, passionate people who will help other Native people gain access to universities and colleges.”

Chenault argues that not requiring proof of tribal enrollment reflects mainstream institutions’ lack of commitment to genuine diversity. She says allowing those with marginal tribal ties to represent the Native community only diminishes the importance of indigenous academics and opens the discipline to attack.

Haskell and the other tribal colleges require proof of tribal affiliation from all faculty and staff claiming American Indian heritage.
It gets worse:Far more objectionable than those who simply “check the box” are the “mock checkers,” says Noley.

The term refers to those in academic programs who not only falsely claim tribal affiliation but also set themselves up as official purveyors of American Indian culture and religion. Some of the professors Noley has labeled as mock-checkers have been known to conduct so-called sacred ceremonies as part of their courses.Many of the ceremonies, however, are little more than amalgamations of parts of disparate ceremonies or outright fabrications.

The reports of questionable ceremonial activities have included stories of faculty taking students on trips to search for their power animals, teaching “sacred” dances, conducting ceremonies each time reservation land was crossed and others.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The term refers to those in academic programs who not only falsely claim tribal affiliation but also set themselves up as official purveyors of American Indian culture and religion. Some of the professors Noley has labeled as mock-checkers have been known to conduct so-called sacred ceremonies as part of their courses.Many of the ceremonies, however, are little more than amalgamations of parts of disparate ceremonies or outright fabrications."

Ward Churchill is a "Professor of Ethics"? If he was not involved in the academic world it might not be so heinous. He should at least admit he has his own thing going and not mash together a tribal identity under false pretenses and then peddle it as something authentic. What I don't get is why he and others take the act so far until they are farces in the public eye. What are they trying to prove? David Yeagley also went after Rudy Youngblood over this same issue but there is a critical difference there. Rudy Youngblood is not preaching to the choir.

Rob said...

Russ, perhaps you should talk to Haskell University about their requiring "proof of tribal affiliation from all faculty and staff claiming American Indian heritage." You could tell them this requirement is bogus because it relies on the federal recognition process.

Even though Indians run the school, I'm sure they'd welcome your superior knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you could tell them how you define an Indian and they could adopt your standard (whatever it is).

The Local Crank said...

I appreciated the fact that you used a picture of Ward Churchill to illustrate these academic frauds. I can't tell you how many times I have to explain to people that he is not Cherokee, not any sort of Indian at all, in fact. What bothers me more than people claiming "Indian blood" are those that go further and either desecrate actual Indian ceremonies and rituals or mislead naive white people with fraudulent "dances" and so forth.

Rob said...

Yes, well, now it's the Native-run university asking for proof of Indianness. Haskell has its standard, Russ; what's yours? Do you think Haskell should let anyone who calls himself an Indian work there? If your CDIB card is good enough, why isn't a Chickasaw or Kickapoo CDIB card also good enough?

I read the articles about Ward Churchill and his refusal to verify his identity. As I always say in these cases, show me the evidence. Tribes like the Chickasaw and Kickapoo have shown their evidence to the federal government, which is why they're recognized today. If Churchill won't show us his evidence, he doesn't deserve to benefit from being an Indian.

P.S. "Local crank" has posted on this blog before. There's no need to take a shower over him unless you really want to.

Rob said...

Re "writerfella will state that he possesses no 'standard' over who is Native and who is not": Sure you do, Russ. You've determined by some means that some tribes are "Indian" and some aren't. These are tribes recognized by the vast majority of Indians as Indian. So you have a standard, whether you can articulate it or not, and you deem it superior to the standard used by other Indians.

That includes the standard used by the Native-run Haskell University. These people aren't part of the federal government; they've decided on their own that they need to screen Indians from non-Indians. So I'll put it to you another way: If you were in charge of hiring at Haskell, what standard would you use?

If you say you don't have a standard, that means you'd hire anyone, including a Pequot, Ward Churchill, or me, who claimed to be an Indian. Is that really your position?

Rob said...

Re "The last thing anyone ever should want to do is to attempt to put words in a writer's (or a writerfella's) mouth!" Why? What are you going to do...duck another question? Misstate another definition? And that hurts me...how?

Gosh, what a surprise. You refuse to answer a question that would highlight the flaws in your thinking. What is this...the 10th time you've failed to rise to the challenge? The 20th time? I've lost count.

Here, I'll spell it out for you. If you have no standard for Indianness, you'd hire anyone to be an Indian professor at Haskell. You'd hire a Pequot even though you've previously declared Pequots aren't Indians. Why? Because if you have no standard, you can't rule out a Pequot's being an Indian.

Therefore, you have a standard, whether you realize it or not. You've declared your standard implicitly, whether you realize it or not. You can distinguish between Indians and people you don't consider Indians, whether you realize it or not.

I don't need "life experience" or "chutzpah" to show you the errors of your ways. Simple logic is sufficient. If you can unravel the puzzlers I've posed, go ahead and do so. If you can't, get back to me when you have enough life experiences and chutzpah.